TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: No prior hearing needed for Registrar's jurisdiction. Annuls High Court's direction.</h1> <h3>STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Versus DILIPBHAI NATHJIBHAI PATEL & ANR.</h3> The Supreme Court clarified that a prior hearing is not required for offenses under the Registrar's jurisdiction under Section 149(3) of the Gujarat ... - Issues: Interpretation of Section 149(3) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 regarding the requirement of prior hearing for prosecution under Section 147(1)(d) and the authority for granting sanction.The appellant, a District Co-operative Officer, lodged a prosecution against two respondents under Section 147(1)(d) of the Act for breaching Section 71, with sanction from the district Registrar as per Section 149(3). The High Court directed that prosecution for the mentioned offence cannot proceed without prior hearing to the respondents. The High Court clarified that other offences can proceed as per law, leading to the challenge in this appeal.The High Court's reasoning for the direction was based on Section 149(3) of the Act, which mandates previous sanction for prosecution under the Act, with hearing required only for offences under Section 147(1)(c) by the State Government or Registrar. The High Court's interpretation implied a hearing is necessary for all offences, but the Supreme Court disagreed, citing that the section does not require hearing for offences under the Registrar's jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that it cannot expand legislative intent or add to the statute.The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation, stating that requiring a hearing for offences under the Registrar would create confusion and disrupt the sanctioning process. The Court emphasized that judicial activism should not override legislative judgment. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and annulled the High Court's direction, upholding the original prosecution with Registrar's sanction.In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 149(3) of the Act, emphasizing that a prior hearing is not required for offences under the Registrar's jurisdiction, and upheld the prosecution against the respondents under Section 147(1)(d) with the Registrar's sanction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
